Whylie v. Con Edison, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whylie v. Con Edison, Inc.

79 A.D.3d 739, 911 N.Y.S.2d 923

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 7, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 739 (Whylie v. Con Edison, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whylie v. Con Edison, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 739, 911 N.Y.S.2d 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 7, 2008, as granted the motion of the defendant Con Edison, Inc., and that branch of the separate motion of the defendant Bendiner & Schlesinger, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether they caused the plaintiffs injuries. They demonstrated through the affirmations of two medical experts, the plaintiffs medical records, and the material safety data sheet, that the plaintiffs brief exposure to X ray processing material did not cause her illness and symptoms (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. She offered no expert evidence showing that her medical condition and symptoms were caused by the alleged toxic chemical exposure (see Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 448 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly awarded the respondents summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 7, 2008, as granted the motion of the defendant Con Edison, Inc., and that branch of the separate motion of the defendant Bendiner & Schlesinger, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The respondents established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether they caused the plaintiffs injuries. They demonstrated through the affirmations of two medical experts, the plaintiffs medical records, and the material safety data sheet, that the plaintiffs brief exposure to X ray processing material did not cause her illness and symptoms (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. She offered no expert evidence showing that her medical condition and symptoms were caused by the alleged toxic chemical exposure (see Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 448 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly awarded the respondents summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 739, 911 N.Y.S.2d 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whylie-v-con-edison-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack